WORK RELATIONSHIP, Evidence of Employee Status

G.R. No. 192998

Tenazas et al vs. R. Villegas Taxi
REYES, J.

Summarized by Mil Ramos

(Hi sorry, medyo exhaustive yung digest; technical kasi yung topic eh :3)

Petitioners were drivers for Villegas Taxi claiming that they were illegally dismissed. In the
assailed CA decision, it decided that while Tenazas and Endraca are employees of the respondent,
their co-petitioner Francisco failed to produce evidence pertaining to his EER with the company.
He was thus granted no remedy. The SC affirms the decision stating that the burden shifted to
Francisco to prove his employment upon the companys denial of the same. Francisco was unable to
overcome it with relevant evidence.

IMPORTANT PEOPLE

Bernard A. Tenazas, Jaime M. Francisco & Isidro G. Endraca petitioners; drivers for respondent

R. Villegas Taxi Transport & Romualdo Villegas respondents; taxi company and owner

FACTS

Name Date of hiring Date of dismissal Salary

Bernard A. Tenazas 10-1997 7-3-2007 Boundary System
Jaime M. Francisco 4-10-2004 6-4-2007 Boundary System
Isidro G. Endraca 4-2000 3-6-2006 Boundary System

1. Tenazas & Francisco filed a complaint for illegal dismissal; Endraca filed a similar case earlier; the
cases were then consolidated
2. Petitioners claims:

a. Tenazas On July 1, 2007, the taxi unit assigned to him was sideswiped by another
vehicle, causing a dent on car. The cost of repair for the damage was at P500.00. Upon
reporting the incident, he was scolded and was told to leave the garage for he is already fired;
he was even threatened with physical hard should he return. Tenazas still reported for work
the next day but was told that he can no longer drive any of the companys units as he is
already fired.
b. Francisco Claimed that his dismissal was brought about by the companys unfounded
suspicion that he was organizing a labor union. He was instantaneously terminated,
without the benefit of procedural due process.
c. Endraca his dismissal was instigated one time when he fell short of the required
boundary. He brought his taxi unit to an auto shop for an urgent repair which costed
P700.00 (repair services & replacement parts). As a result, he was not able to meet his
boundary for the day. Upon informing the management of the incident, his drivers license was

1
 confiscated and was told to settle the deficiency in his boundary for his
licenses return. He was no longer allowed to drive a taxi unit despite his
persistent pleas

3. Respondents claims:

a. Tenazas and Endraca were employees of the company (regular driver and spare driver,
respectively); Francisco was not their employee
b. Tenazas was never terminated by the company. On July 3, 2007, Tenazas went to the
company garage to get his taxi unit but was informed that it is due for overhaul because of
problems reported by the other driver who takes turns with him in using the same. He was
advised to wait for further notice if his unit has already been fixed. On July 8, 2007 Tenazas
failed to report back to work despit being informed that his unit is ready for release.
c. Endraca, was a spare driver in February 2001. They allowed him to drive a taxi unit whenever
a regular driver is absent. In July 2003, Endraca stopped reporting for work without informing
the company of his reason. Subsequently, the respondents learned that a complaint for illegal
dismissal was filed by Endraca against them. They claim that they could never have
terminated Endraca in March 2006 since he already stopped reporting for work as early as July
2003. They have expressed willingness to accommodate Endraca should he wish to work as a
spare driver for the company again since he was never really dismissed from employment
anyway.

4. May 29, 2008- Petitioners, by registered mail, filed a Motion to Admit Additional Evidence
which cited new pieces of evidence that will substantiate their allegations. Attached are:

a. Joint Affidavit of the petitioners

b. Affidavit of Good Faith of Aloney Rivera, a co-driver
c. pictures of the petitioners wearing company shirts
d. Tenazas Certification/Record of Social Security System (SSS) contributions

5. May 30, 2008 Labor Arbiter Decision: THERE WAS NO ILLEGAL DISMISSAL there were
no formal investigations, no show cause memos, suspension memos or termination memos
issued; there is no proof of overt act of dismissal committed by respondents

a. Francisco failed to present evidence of regular employment available to all regular

employees (i.e. employment contract, company ID, SSS, withholding tax certificates, SSS
membership), the burden being shifted to him to prove the EER upon respondents denial
of such relationship
b. Endraca was only an extra driver who stopped reporting to queue for available taxi units; he
was even offered immediate reinstatement as extra taxi driver which he refused
c. Tenazas was told to wait while his taxi was under repair but he did not report for work after
the taxi was repaired; he was also offered immediate reinstatement which he refused

6. NLRC Ruling reversed LA decision

a. considered later evidence submitted because Motion to Admit Additional Evidence may not
have reach the Labor Arbiters attention because he had drafted the challenged decision
even before it was submitted
b. Villegas ordered to pay the complainants backwages, separation pay and attorneys fees

2
 7. CA Ruling affirmed NLRC ruling with modification that Francisco failed to
establish his relationship with the company and deletion of separation pay since reinstatement is
still possible for Tenazas and Endraca:

a. Although substantial evidence is not a function of quantity but rather of quality, the
peculiar environmental circumstances of the instant case demand that something
more should have been proffered.

ISSUE with HOLDING

W/N Franciso had EER with the respondent company Not proven, insufficient evidence

It is an oft-repeated rule that in labor cases (as in other admv & quasi-jud proceedings) that the
quantum of proof necessary is substantial evidence, or such amount of relevant evidence which a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. The burden of proof rests upon
the party who asserts the affirmative of an issue.

There is no hard and fast rule designed to establish the elements in the EER test. Any competent
and relevant evidence to prove the relationship may be admitted (i.e. IDs, cash vouchers,
social security registration, appointment letters or employment contracts, payrolls, organization
charts, and personnel lists, serve as evidence of employee status)

With the respondents denial of the EER, it becomes incumbent upon Francisco to present
substantial evidence to prove that he is an employee before any question on the legality of his
supposed dismissal becomes appropriate for discussion. However, he did not offer evidence to
substantiate his claim.

Anent his claim that he was not issued with employment records, he could have at least produced
his social security records as his co-petitioner did. He could have also presented testimonial
evidence showing the respondents exercise of control over the means and methods by which he
undertakes his work.

This is imperative in light of another taxi operator's claim (Emmanuel Villegas) that Francisco was
employed as his spare driver a fact that the latter failed to deny or question in any of the
pleadings. The utter lack of evidence is fatal to Franciscos case especially in cases when the
law has been very lenient in not requiring any particular form of evidence or manner of proving the
presence EER.

The CA does not assess and weigh the sufficiency of evidence upon which the LA and the NLRC
based their conclusions. The issue is limited to the determination of whether or not the NLRC acted
without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion in renderinsg the resolution,
except if the findings of the NLRC are not supported by substantial evidence.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disquisition, the petition for review on certiorari is DENIED.
The Decision dated March 11, 2010 and Resolution dated June 28, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 111150 are AFFIRMED.